scholarly journals Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health

BDJ ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 219 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-67 ◽  
The Lancet ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 386 (10006) ◽  
pp. 1861-1914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Watts ◽  
W Neil Adger ◽  
Paolo Agnolucci ◽  
Jason Blackstock ◽  
Peter Byass ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luckrezia Awuor

The relevance of a public health frame in supporting the climate change impact awareness and consensus on actions is well recognized but largely underutilized. Overall, supporting public health’s capacity in climate change has focused on projecting and highlighting public health impacts due to climate change, identifying public health policy responses, and emphasizing public health role. The integration of the public health perspective in the discussion and communication of climate change ideas has remained elusive.<div>Climate change is also a complex social problem whose construction of meaning and actions is rooted in institutionalized language, discourse, and human interactions. Thus, understanding of the construction of the relevance of public health in climate change discourse is central to understanding the impediments of the public health frame application. Unfortunately, this has been a neglected area of research, and the dissertation responded to that gap. </div><div>To delineate the impediments of the public health frame, the study used the case study of the context of climate change policy discourse in the Province of Ontario (Canada) to examine the construction of public health relevance, the extent of public health frame application, and the systematic influences in the discourse.</div><div>The analysis of policy documents and key informant interviews revealed that the public health frame remained isolated from the primary focus of Ontario’s climate change policy discourse. Instead, Ontario’s historically and socially constructed climate change as an economic and political issue solved through market strategies and technological innovations forwarded by political, bureaucratic, and technological elites. The focus substantiated the types of structures and processes of policies and decisions, the relevant actors and knowledge, and the values supporting the discursive, normative, and strategic practices. Ontario’s focus also limited the utilization of the public health frame and the supporting capacities through the misalignment between public health and the provincial strategic actions, the lack of recognition and integration of public health roles, mandate and structures, and limited public health capacity building initiatives.</div><div>Therefore, public health framing as an endpoint of climate change discourse requires legitimation of public health in the underlying institutional structures for, and governance of, climate change. </div>


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luckrezia Awuor

The relevance of a public health frame in supporting the climate change impact awareness and consensus on actions is well recognized but largely underutilized. Overall, supporting public health’s capacity in climate change has focused on projecting and highlighting public health impacts due to climate change, identifying public health policy responses, and emphasizing public health role. The integration of the public health perspective in the discussion and communication of climate change ideas has remained elusive.<div>Climate change is also a complex social problem whose construction of meaning and actions is rooted in institutionalized language, discourse, and human interactions. Thus, understanding of the construction of the relevance of public health in climate change discourse is central to understanding the impediments of the public health frame application. Unfortunately, this has been a neglected area of research, and the dissertation responded to that gap. </div><div>To delineate the impediments of the public health frame, the study used the case study of the context of climate change policy discourse in the Province of Ontario (Canada) to examine the construction of public health relevance, the extent of public health frame application, and the systematic influences in the discourse.</div><div>The analysis of policy documents and key informant interviews revealed that the public health frame remained isolated from the primary focus of Ontario’s climate change policy discourse. Instead, Ontario’s historically and socially constructed climate change as an economic and political issue solved through market strategies and technological innovations forwarded by political, bureaucratic, and technological elites. The focus substantiated the types of structures and processes of policies and decisions, the relevant actors and knowledge, and the values supporting the discursive, normative, and strategic practices. Ontario’s focus also limited the utilization of the public health frame and the supporting capacities through the misalignment between public health and the provincial strategic actions, the lack of recognition and integration of public health roles, mandate and structures, and limited public health capacity building initiatives.</div><div>Therefore, public health framing as an endpoint of climate change discourse requires legitimation of public health in the underlying institutional structures for, and governance of, climate change. </div>


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Coleman ◽  
Rebecca Clifford ◽  
Catherine Hewitt ◽  
Jim McCambridge

Abstract Background Policies which reduce affordability and availability of alcohol are known to be effective in reducing alcohol harms. Public support is important in policy decision making and implementation, and it may be possible to intervene to improve public support for alcohol policy measures. This systematic review aims to explore the effects of interventions to increase public support for evidence based policy measures in relation to either public health or climate change, and to examine underpinning theory and content of effective interventions.Methods The electronic search strategy was built around the constructs "public support or opinion", "health or climate change policies" and "interventions". Backward and forward searching was conducted, and authors of included papers contacted. Studies were included if they aimed to intervene to improve public support for public health or climate change policy measures, were controlled trials, and targeted the general public.Results Sixteen studies were included in this review, of which 13 had sufficient data for inclusion in meta analyses. The pooled effect estimates for continuous and binary data both show improvements in public support for policy measures as a result of evaluated interventions. The pooled standardised mean difference (n=8 studies) is 0.13 (95% C.I. 0.08-0.17), and the pooled odds ratio (n=5 studies) is 1.72 (95% C.I. 1.33-2.21). Careful attention to message framing, with or without narrative persuasion, appears particularly important content for efficacious interventions.Conclusion This systematic review demonstrates the efficacy of interventions to improve public support for public health policies.


AMBIO ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 74-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas K. Rudel ◽  
Patrick Meyfroidt ◽  
Robin Chazdon ◽  
Frans Bongers ◽  
Sean Sloan ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mary Fox ◽  
Christopher Zuidema ◽  
Bridget Bauman ◽  
Thomas Burke ◽  
Mary Sheehan

Policy action in the coming decade will be crucial to achieving globally agreed upon goals to decarbonize the economy and build resilience to a warmer, more extreme climate. Public health has an essential role in climate planning and action: “Co-benefits” to health help underpin greenhouse gas reduction strategies, while safeguarding health—particularly of the most vulnerable—is a frontline local adaptation goal. Using the structure of the core functions and essential services (CFES), we reviewed the literature documenting the evolution of public health’s role in climate change action since the 2009 launch of the US CDC Climate and Health Program. We found that the public health response to climate change has been promising in the area of assessment (monitoring climate hazards, diagnosing health status, assessing vulnerability); mixed in the area of policy development (mobilizing partnerships, mitigation and adaptation activities); and relatively weak in assurance (communication, workforce development and evaluation). We suggest that the CFES model remains important, but is not aligned with three concepts—governance, implementation and adjustment—that have taken on increasing importance. Adding these concepts to the model can help ensure that public health fulfills its potential as a proactive partner fully integrated into climate policy planning and action in the coming decade.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document